1 2026:CGHC:2664-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 177 of 2026 1 - Anjor Singh Manjhi S/o Ravilal Manjhi Aged About 33 Years R/o Village Baradoli Ps- Saraipali District- Mahasamund, Present Address- Bhatagaon, Balodabazar Ps- City Kotwali District- Balodabazar- Bhatapara (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Police Station City Kotwali, Balodabazar. 2 - Amrish Sahu S/o Harikishan Sahu Aged About 38 Years R/o Near Old Nagar Palika, Balodabazar, Ps- City Kotwali, Balodabazar, District- Balodabazar. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Himanshu Pandey, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Dharmesh Shrivastava, Dy. Advocate General. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 16/01/2026 ALOK SHARMA Digitally signed by ALOK SHARMA Date: 2026.01.22 10:42:02 +0530 2 1. Heard Mr. Himanshu Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Dharmesh Shrivastava, learned Dy. Advocate General, appearing appearing for the Respondent/State. 2. Present is a Criminal Miscellaneous Petition filed by the petitioner under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 for quashing of the FIR No. 261/2024 registered at Police Station City Kotwali, District Balodabazar for the offence under Sections 384, 389, 212, 201 and 34 of IPC against the petitioner, quashing of the charge-sheet No. 873/2024, and order taking cognizance dated 12.08.2025 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Balodabazar and also for setting aside order taking cognizance dated 29.10.2025 and prayed for the following reliefs; “a. Quash and set aside the FIR dated 07.04.2024 registered at Police Station - City Kotwali, Balodabazar, bearing Crime No. 261/2024, for the offences punishable under Sections 384, 389, 212, 201 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, insofar as it relates to the present Petitioner; b. Quash the Charge-sheet bearing No. 873/2024 dated 25.11.2024, along with all consequential criminal proceedings arising therefrom; c. Quash and set aside the cognizance order dated 12.08.2025 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, District-Balodabazar in the aforesaid case, d. Quash and set aside the cognizance order dated 29.10.2025 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, District-Balodabazar in the aforesaid case. e. That this Hon'ble court may further be pleased to 3 pass any other order in favor of petitioner as it may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case with cost.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is an accused in the criminal case No. 3363/2024, pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Balodabazar, which arises out of the aforesaid crime No. 261/2024, registered at Police Station City Kotwali, Balodabazar, for the offence under Sections 384, 389, 212, 201 and 34 of IPC. At City Kotwarli Balodabazar and offence of Crime No. 250/2024, for the offence under Section 384, 389, and 34 of IPC was registered against the accused Monti allas Pratyush Maraiya, along with other accused persons. During the investigation the police came to know that in between 15.02.2024 to 20.02.2024, the accused persons of that offence also extorted money from the complainant of the present case, namely Amrish Sahu and he gave Rs. 2,75,000/- to Ashish Shukla, Ravina Tandon and Anurita Banjare. A separate offence of Crime No. 261/2024 is registered against accused persons Monti alias Pratyush Maraiya, Durga Tandon, Ravina Tandon, Pushpmala Fekar, Heera Kali, Anurita Banjare, Ashish Shukla and Shrish Pandey. The memorandum statement of the accused persons and seizure memos of the Crime No. 250/2024 was also merged with the present offence of Crime No. 261/2024. Statement of the complainant and other witnesses were recorded and during the investigation it revealed that the complainant and the accused Anurita Banjare stayed in a lodge at Balozabazar on 18.02.2024, from the memorandum statement of 4 Shirish Pandey it comes that the present petitioner Anjor Singh Manjhi who was a constable, giving location to the police party and he change his place so that his arrest can be avoided. He was in regular contact with the present petitioner. When he was called for investigation, he did not co-operate. When his house was being searched, one I-phone, one state bank ATM card, one bank of baroda ATM card, one HDFC debit card, one bank of baroda debit card, two pass books, one passbook of Naresh Kumar Khunte, two pass book of Prakash Manjhi, one passbook of Pushpa Thakur, three diaries, one laptop, key board and charges and one DBR has been seized. He neither gave any explanation about the bank accounts of other persons nor signed the talashi and seizure punchnama. From the memorandum statement of other accused persons and other evidence available on record it also transpires that the complainant was in regular touch with Ravina Tandon and the present petitioner was in regular touch with accused Shirsih Pandey. The petitioner made various transactions in the bank account of accused Shirish Pandey and having call details with him and the present petitioner has given shelter to the accused Shirish Pandey. After completion of investigation charge-sheet was filed against the petitioner and other accused persons, in which the learned trial Court has cognizance of the offences on 29.10.2025. Hence, the present petition. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the charge-sheet do not disclosed commission of any cognizable offence against the petitioner. There is no ingredients of the offence of extortion defined under Section 383 of IPC. There is no delivery of any money or 5 any property to the petitioner by the complainant. There is no allegation that the present petitioner put the complainant in fear of death or grievous hurt or any other kind of fear. The allegation against the petitioner is only that he give shelter to the accused Shirish Pandey and shared location of the police party to the accused persons; however, such an allegation is not sufficient for the offence under Sections 384 and 389 of the IPC. He fairly submits that the petitioner had filed an application under Section 239 of Cr. P.C. before the learned trial Court for his discharge from the offences but the said application was dismissed by the learned trial Court on 02.08.2025. The said order dated 02.08.2025 was challenged by the petitioner in criminal revision No. 30/2025, before the learned First Additional Sessions judge, Balodabazar which has also been dismissed on 27.11.2025. There is lack of sufficient ingredients of the alleged offence in the charge-sheet and the petition may be allowed and the proceeding of Criminal Case as well as cognizance order may be quashed. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No.01/State opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and would submit that the petitioner has made an application under Section 354 of Cr.P.C. before the learned trial Court for re- considering the order dated 02.08.2025 by which the application of Section 239 of Cr.P.C. has been dismissed and the learned trial Court has rejected the application of the petitioner on the ground that there is no provision of review in criminal proceeding with respect to the order which already been passed, the order dated 02.08.2025 has already 6 been challenged by the petitioner in Criminal Revision No. 30/2025, before the learned Sessions Court which has been dismissed on 27.11.2025 but the petitioner has not challenged the said order dated 27.11.2025, therefore, no relief as claimed in the present petition, can be granted to the petitioner as h already availed the remedy against the order of dated 02.08.2025, rejecting his application under Section 239 of Cr.P.C. Even otherwise, there are sufficient material in the charge- sheet against the petitioner that he, with the conspiracy/collusion with the other accused persons committed the offence. Therefore, the present petition is liable to be dismissed. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material annexed with the petition. 7. From perusal of the FIR as well as the memorandum statement of the accused persons, statement of the witnesses, It is vividly revealed the syndicate of the accused persons to commit the offence they trapped various persons to extort money from them including the present complaint. It also revealed the entire network which they framed to trap the victims, seizure of various bank accounts, ATM cards, and other articles from the house of the present petitioner. His non- cooperation with the investigation also reveals that there are sufficient material against him in charge-sheet to proceed with the trial of the case. It is alleged that the petitioner is police constable and was in regular touch with the accused Shirish Pandey and there was money transaction in their bank accounts and he provided shelter to him. 7 8. Further, the application under Section 239 of Cr.P.C. was rejected by the learned trial Court on 02.08.2025, which was filed by the petitioner for his discharge. The application for review of the order dated 02.08.2025 is rejected by the learned trial Court on 12.08.2025 holding that there is no provision of review and the order dated 02.08.2025 cannot be reviewed. The order dated 12.08.2025 has been challenged in the present petition but the order dated 02.08.2025 has not been challenged. Further the order dated 02.08.2025 was challenged by the petitioner in Criminal Revision No. 30/2025, before the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Balodabazar which is also dismissed on 27.11.2025 and the said order dated 27.11.2025 has also not been challenged in the present petition. The order dated 12.08.2025 has rightly been passed by the learned trial Court as there is no provision for review in criminal matters. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, we are not inclined to interfere in the petition, as the order passed by the learned trial Court does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity. 9. In the matter of Manjit Singh Virdi vs. Hussain Mohammad Shattaf 2023 (7) SCC 633, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in para 12 of its judgement that:- 12. The law on the point has been summarised in a recent judgment of this Court in State of Rajasthan v. Ashok Kumar Kashyap³ Relevant paras are extracted below: (SCC pp. 197-98, para 11) "11....11.1. In P. Vijayan v. State of Kerala, this Court had an occasion to consider Section 227 CrPC. What is required to be considered at the time of framing 8 of the charge and/or considering the discharge application has been considered elaborately in the said decision. It is observed and held that at the stage of Section 227, the Judge has merely to f sift the evidence in order to find out whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. It is observed that in other words, the sufficiency of grounds would take within its fold the nature of the evidence recorded by the police or the documents produced before the court which ex facie disclose that there are suspicious circumstances against the accused so as to frame a charge against him. It is further observed that if g the Judge comes to a conclusion that there is sufficient ground to proceed. he will frame a charge under Section 228 CrPC, if not, he will discharge the accused. It is further observed that while exercising its judicial mind to the facts of the case in order to determine whether a case for trial has been made out by the prosecution, it is not necessary for the court to enter s the pros and cons of the matter or into a weighing and balancing of evidence and probabilities which is really the function of the court, after the trial starts. 11.2 to the recent decision of this Court in State of Karnataka v. MR. Memah, one of us (D. Y. Chandrachud, J) speaking for the Bench has observed and held in para 25 as under: (SCC p. 526) '25. The High Court ought to have been cognizant of the fact that the trial court was dealing with an application for discharge under the provisions of Section 219 CPC. The parameters which govern the exercise of this jurisdiction have found expression in several decisions of this Court. It is a settled principle of law that at the stage of considering an application for discharge the court must proceed on the assumption that the material which has been brought on the record by the prosecution is true and evaluate the material in order to determine whether the facts emerging from the material, taken on its face value, disclose the existence of the ingredients necessary to constitute the offence. In State of N. v. N. Suresh Rajan, adverting to the earlier 9 decisions on the subject, this Court held: (N. Suresh Rajan case, SCC 721-22, para 20) "29....... At this stage, probative value of the materials has to be gone into and the court is not expected to go deep into the matter and hold that the materials would not warrant a conviction In our opinion, what needs to be considered is whether there is a ground for presuming that the offence has been committed and not whether a ground for convicting the accused has been made out To put it differently, if the court thinks that the accused might have the offence on t committed the the basis of the materials on record on its probative value, it can frame the charge, though for conviction, the court has to come to the conclusion that the accused has committed the offence. The law does not permit a mini trial at this stage." 10. Accordingly, the present petition lacks merit, liable to be and hereby dismissed. 11. The petitioner is at liberty to take recourse to law if aggrieved by the order passed by the revisional Court. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Alok